You are on page 1of 22

Romania

By Harald Heppner and Rudolf Grf

World War I afforded the first opportunity for modern Romania to participate in a war which
had a larger than regional horizon (South-East Europe). The most important reason for
participation was interest in gaining territories belonging to Austria-Hungary in which
Romanians, as well as others, lived. The attack on the Habsburg Empire however backfired
and most of Romania was captured with the aid of the German Empire, and occupied until
autumn 1918. Despite this defeat Romania succeeded in using the situation and its
consequences to create a nation state of more than twice its original size.

Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Romania before World War I
3 Austria-Hungarys Romanian Question
4 Romania during the War (1914-1916)
5 Romanias Attack on Austria-Hungary
6 The Counter-Attack of the Central Powers
7 The Occupied Part of Romania
8 The Unoccupied Part of Romania
9 Romania at the End of the War (1918-1920)
10 Conclusion
Notes
Selected Bibliography
Citation

Introduction

The so-called Romanian Old Kingdom (a consolidation of the principalities of Moldova and
Valachia) was not established in a political-territorial way until the middle of the 19th century and it
remained a small state at the edge of Europe in the subsequent decades. Hence, Romania could
not play a role within Europe until it joined one of the political alliances. The country was part of the
Triple alliance|Triple Alliance between 1883 and 1914 (initially Germany, Austria-Hungary and
Russia, later also Italy and Romania) under which the Central Powers operated during World War I
(WWI), but it changed sides in 1916 and became a member of the Entente. The roots of the
modern Romanian nation-state are based on many different influences from Western, Central and
Eastern Europe, which affected the country during the 19th century. Especially French and German
factors were brought into play and complemented the local tradition which was closely associated
with the Orthodox culture and the Ottoman civilisation. Romania declared its neutrality in 1914 and
the following questions arose for the opposed alliances: Would Romania stay permanently neutral
or change its policy depending on the course of the war? At what time and for which reason would
a change happen? Which advantages and disadvantages would arise for all parties? Between
1914 and 1916 both rival groups made efforts to make Romania predictable and after that
applicable for their own calculations. While the Romanian policy Carol I, King of Romania (18391914) was pro-German until 1914, his successor Ferdinand I, King of Romania (1865-1927)
adopted a Francophile course in order to promote the principle of unification of all Romanians. This
aim was given priority over the insufficiently advanced modernisation within the kingdom
(industrialisation, democratisation). Thus, the Romanian nation did not uniformly support entry into
the war in 1916. While the national liberal powers and their supporters were in favour of war, the
agrarian majority looked to the solution of social questions, which could not be answered until the
end of World War I or even until the end of World War II.

Romania before World War I


Throughout the 19 th century, modern Romania was shaped by interactions between internal
transformations and properly effected international connections. In only six decades the
principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia turned from vassal states under the sovereignty of the
Turks into a sovereign Romanian state that played an important role in the alliance system
worldwide and also succeeded at the end of World War I in making its claims heard over the
Romanian inhabited territories that until 1918 had belonged to Russia, Austria-Hungary or
Bulgaria.[1]
Throughout the 19 th century, Romania was preoccupied with the 're-connection' to the Central and
Western European world since Moldavia and Valachia, vassal states of the Ottoman Empire, had
been for four centuries severed from the cultural advances in Central Europe Humanism,
Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment. An immense need to be in tune with this world is
characteristic of Romanian society: a need that translates into its so-called synchronisation.[2]

A special case was represented by the provinces which were inhabited mostly by Romanians, but
embedded in other states: Banat (where Germans, Serbs and Hungarians coexisted) and which
had been occupied by the Habsburgs since 1718; the Bihor and Maramure regions (Romanians
and Ukrainians); Transylvania (Romanians, Hungarians, Germans), which since 1690/91 had been
under the Habsburgs as a Grand Duchy, and after 1867, by constitution was the Hungarian part of
the Dual Monarchy; Bukovina (Romanians, Ukrainians, Germans and Jews), which had been an
Austrian province since 1774/76; and Bessarabia (Romanians, Russians, Ukrainians, Germans,
Jews), which was ceded to Russia in 1812. These Romanians, living within other states, became
important for the direction of Romanian foreign affairs.
With the deepening of the 'Oriental crisis' and the issue of how the inheritance of Europes 'sick
man' would fall to pieces, the 'Romanian question' gradually became an important issue for the
European cabinet. Putting an end to the Crimean War, the Congress of Paris (1856) already
allowed for the possibility of the principalities of Moldavia and Valachia merging in the future: this
finally happened between 1859 and 1861. Bordered by the Ottoman, Russian and Habsburg
Empires, the new state was born on the Lower Danube: it was a potential obstacle for Russias
advance through the Balkans. Whereas Prussia had endorsed the emergence of the new state,
Austria felt it should react in a rather reserved manner despite the fact that it was among the first to
have recognised the new state: a united Romanian state could have been a very powerful
reference point for the Romanians of Transylvania as indeed, eventually happened. Austria and
the Ottoman Empire were the chief opponents of the unification.
The principalities of Moldavia and Valachia, the United Principalities of Moldo-Valachia and finally
Romania had to assert themselves in an international context in which Russia on the one hand
and the Habsburg Empire on the other wanted to take over the Ottomans role in the Balkan
region. In this context, the Romanian political elites saw Russia as a much greater danger, which
also led them to search for an alliance with the German Empire and implicitly Austria-Hungary.
Moldavia and Valachia were unified de facto in 1859 (the administrative and political union was
achieved in 1861), and through the double election of Alexandru Ioan Cuza (1820-1873), Carol I, a
ruler from the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen House, was to take over Romanias throne, so as to lead
the country on the "long way towards the West." In 1866 a constitution fashioned after the Belgian
model came into effect, enshrining a parliamentary system, the separation of powers and a
constitutional monarchy.
The Balkan insurrections against the Ottoman Empire (1875) and the self-proclaimed role of
Russia to protect the Orthodox Christians in the Balkans drew the Romanian governments
attention to their relationship with their "great" Russian neighbour. Russias war against Turkey, to
whose successful denouement Romanias army had contributed significantly, taught the young
Romanian state that relations with Great Powers are not always easy to build up: even though
Romanias independence was recognised, Russia again seized the south of Bessarabia together
with the northern branch of the Danube and its ships once more sailed in the Black Sea.

At the Congress of Berlin, Germany was an advocate of Romanias independence upon condition
that the losses of the Stroudsberg and Bleichrder banking companies during the construction of
the Romanian railway lines were reimbursed and the Jewish community granted citizenship. Only
after the Romanian state complied with these conditions would the German Empire, France and
Great Britain recognise its independence.[3]
In 1881, Prince Carol was proclaimed king, and Romania a kingdom. The previous experiences
with Russia, the power loss that France suffered after 1871, the dominant position of the GermanAustrian alliance and then the Triple Alliance made the king, together with a significant part of the
Romanian political elite, search for an alliance with the German Empire. The German chancellor
Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898) was not disposed ready for the road to Berlin to pass through
Vienna. On 30 October 1883 Romania joined the Triple Alliance by means of a defensive
agreement with Austria-Hungary. The German Empire joined it on the same day. Romania had to
disregard serious obstacles when signing the deal: the economic differences that would later lead
to the 1886-1891/93 Tariff Customs War; the differences concerning the issues of navigation
controls on the Lower Danube; and, even more burdensome, the question of the Romanians from
Transylvania and Hungary, i.e. the status of the Romanians in the Hungarian side of the Dual
Monarchy.[4]
The alliance was renewed in 1892, 1896, 1902, and, for the last time in 1913, with extended
validity until 1920. It was brought to the knowledge of only the most significant political figures (the
prime minister and foreign minister in office) as well as the king, and was not ratified by parliament,
which was not, however, uncommon for that period.[5] Its guarantor was none other than King
Carol I, supported nonetheless by an increasingly large group of Germanophiles.
Until the Balkan Wars (1912/13), Romania was a loyal partner in the alliance with the Central
Powers. The question of the Romanians in Transylvania however soured this relationship, while
the changes in the Balkan politics of Austria in the Second Balkan War (1913) sheared Romania
off. The Bucharest Peace Treaty put an end to the Second Balkan War and gave Romania
territorial expansion on the coast with Bulgaria against Austria's will, showing the signs of a new
orientation of Romanian foreign policy. Since 1883, by means of the alliance with Austria-Hungary
and, from the Romanian perspective, especially the alliance with Germany, Romania secured its
borders, and gradually became a more significant partner for European Powers. All the Great
Powers would favour an alliance with Romania, who was finally able to negotiate its interests on
an international platform. It was a different Romania from that of 1859, 1877/1878, but also from
that of 1908.

Austria-Hungarys Romanian Question

From the onset of World War I more than 5 million inhabitants lived in the Habsburg Monarchy. Of
these, 2,827,419 were Romanian (53.7 percent), 1,662,180 Hungarian (31.6 percent) and 564,359
Germans (Transylvanian Saxons, 10.7 percent).[6] In comparison with the year 1850, when the
Romanian population represented 59.5 percent of the total in Transylvania, this figure had dropped
by 5.8 percent, while the Hungarian population went up by 5.6 percent and the German one also
recorded a rise of 1.4 percent.[7] Hungarian authors quote only slightly different figures.[8] It is
significant that Transylvanian society at the beginning of the 20th century stemmed from the
permanent constitution that the Habsburgs adopted when they appropriated the area. It was a
state organisation based on three estates that guaranteed the rights of the Hungarians (the
noblemen), the Szekler people and the Transylvanian Saxons, leaving the Romanians outside any
political life. Romanians and Hungarians stepped on the road to national development almost
simultaneously, the Hungarians after the language reforms of Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor
(1741-1790) which raised a strong reaction among them. The establishment of the Greek Catholic
Church and the expansion of the Austrian military borders facilitated the acceleration of Romanian
national development, which in turn allowed for increased efforts in obtaining a similar political
status to that of the other privileged nations in Transylvania. Shortly after the founding of the
Romanian border regiments, during the 1784 Horea insurrection, and again in 1848 when the
Romanians affirmed their rights in front of the Hungarian government, the Transylvanian
Romanians stood on the side of the House of Habsburg, from where they awaited their salvation.[9]
For this reason, the disappointment concerning the Neo-absolutist regime and especially the
Austrian-Hungarian Compromise in 1867 was considerable. The Diploma of 20 October 1860 was
an act which restored hope among Romanians as it recognised Transylvanias autonomy again
and brought about the possibility for Romanians to participate in the governing bodies of
Transylvania. Until 1867 Saxons and Romanians opposed the Union of Transylvania with Hungary
that was envisioned by the Hungarians.[10] In 1863 the newly convoked Landtag (parliament)
would be "the first and also the last Transylvanian Landtag in which Romanians would be
represented as a majority."[11] As a consequence, Romanians were formally treated as equals
among the other nations on the political scene.
The 1867 Compromise, preceded by the Landtag of the Union from November 1865 which ratified
the unification of Transylvania with Hungary with 166 votes, versus twenty-nine Romanian and
twenty-six Saxon votes, opened a new chapter in the history of Transylvania, which would, in fact,
confirm the annulment of the Transylvanian autonomy.[12] A period of economic boom followed,
with real economic and social opportunities for every nationality. These were supported through
state measures such as the Industry Promotion Laws from 1881, 1888, 1890, 1899 and 1907, and
through liberal measures, which brought cultural advances for the three nations in Transylvania.
The Nationalities Law (7 December 1868), which despite the fact that it reaffirmed the concept of
the homogeneous Magyar nation, enshrined the equal status of different nationalities and granted
several concessions for the use of different languages in Transylvanias public life. Moreover, this

set of laws was preceded by another two that had granted the Orthodox Church complete church
and teaching autonomy (GA IX/1868/27 July 1868),[13] so that the Greek Catholic Church was on
a par with the Roman Catholic Church.[14] In reality, the Hungarian Government soon abandoned
good intentions and led an inflexible Magyarisation policy through a series of consecutive laws.
This was achieved by the passing of the Laws of Trefort (XVIII/1879 and XXX/1883), the Schooling
Law XXV in 1891, and the Apponyi Law XXVII in 2 June 1907, which provided for an increased
role for the Hungarian language in the schools of the different Transylvanian nationalities.[15]
Reactions to this policy came from the Romanian representatives, not only spiritual leaders, but
also lay persons. In May 1868, in Blaj the seat of the Greek Catholic Church of the Romanians
from Transylvania), Romanians celebrated the 20th anniversary of the National Assembly and
through their representatives, compiled a document in which they demanded the restoration of
political autonomy for Transylvania, the implementation of the Landtag Law of 1863/64 and the
assembly of a new legislative institution based on democratic election principles.
In 1877/78 Romanians from Transylvania showed solidarity towards Romania that had obtained,
through war, its independence from Turkey. In 1881 the political leaders of the Romanians from
Transylvania, Banat and Hungary succeeded in merging their political parties into the National
Romanian Party (PNR). In 1892 a delegation of 300 Romanian representatives, led by Ion Raiu
(1828-1902), handed over to Francis Joseph I, Emperor of Austria (18301916) a Memorandum of
the Romanians in Transylvania and Hungary. The Emperor, acting as the Hungarian king, passed
the Memorandum on to the Hungarian Government, which returned it. The Emperors approach to
the matter, the condemnation and the ensuing arrest of the authors of the document led to a
breach in the loyalty of Romanians from Transylvania towards the imperial house. In 1894 the
PNR was outlawed.
Shortly before the outbreak of war, the situation in Transylvania between the Romanians and the
Hungarian Government circles was tense. The Romanian population of Transylvania had a long
process of identity formation behind them, political maturity and a developed awareness of their
own national rights. These had been promoted since the 18 th century through the unification of a
branch of the Orthodox Church with the Roman Catholic, the expansion of the Austrian military
border and the development of the Greek Catholic and Orthodox school systems.[16] Additionally,
one must take into account the circumstances whereby Romanians in Transylvania lived in a state
that was part of a great European Power. As such, they had economic prosperity that was far
superior to that in the Romanian Kingdom, enjoyed the advantages of Law and Order and, most
importantly, benefitted from a confessional school system that opened the doors of Universities
such as those from Vienna, Graz and Budapest. Nonetheless, the price that they had to pay for
the economic and social advances was the recognition of the political, unitary, single Magyar
Nation.
Over the decades, the Romanians tried to gain support for their demands in Vienna. They had

shown loyalty towards the imperial house in 1784, during the Napoleonic Wars, and in 1848 when
the resistance by Romanians from Transylvania to the Hungarian revolutionary armed forces
contributed significantly to the salvation of the monarchy. In return for such actions, they expected
recognition as a political nation and an equal status such as benefitted the other nations in the
country. They had been part of the discussions and decisions concerning the new organisation of
the monarchy, both by means of personal projects, such as the one penned by Aurel C. Popovici
(1863-1917) about the "United States of Greater Austria",[17] by means of participation of the
representatives of the National Romanian Party in the political life. The many names include Ioan
Raiu, Alexandru Vaida-Voievod (1872-1950) and Iuliu Maniu (1873-1953). A difficult time followed
for the Romanians in Transylvania. Torn between loyalty towards the dynasty and the state on the
one hand, and the perspective of a national future on the other, they saw no other course of action
but to do military service in the Austrian-Hungarian army until the end of the War.

Romania during the War (1914-1916)


After Romania had won its national independence on the battlefields of Bulgaria, the main concern
of the rulers was to protect this status along with the countrys territory.[18] The recurrent
experiences the principalities had with Russia from 1812 on (successive occupations: 1848, 1853,
marching-through 1877), made them cautious in relations with this neighbour. Russias close
relationship with Bulgaria enhanced after 1878, representing a confinement for Romania in
between two not very friendly states, led Romania to join the German-Austrian Dual Alliance, which
was another obstacle to overcome due to the large numbers of Romanians living in the Hungarian
part of the Habsburg Empire. However, along with the dynastic change and the foreign policy in
Serbia after 1903, when the country shifted from its pro-Habsburg attitude towards support of
Russia, and after 1908 when Bulgaria increasingly sought the backing of Austria-Hungary, there
was no longer a danger from a Russian-Bulgarian alliance,[19] but rather from an AustrianBulgarian one. This was the reason why Romania could not accept the territorial gains of Bulgaria
after the First Balkan War and why it intervened in the Second Balkan War against its southern
neighbour. With the ensuing Peace of Bucharest (10 August 1913), Romania achieved territorial
gains against Bulgaria, despite the will of Austria-Hungary. From this perspective, Vienna became
less confident in Romanias alliance pledge.
For Romania there was, however, a fundamental change in its international status: in 1856 and
1878 it was subject to external political decisions, but by 1913 the Romanian government hosted
the peace conference where the redesign of the Balkans was decided. The former chief of the
Russian Diplomacy, Alexander Petrovich Iswolski (1856-1919) gladly congratulated his successor
Sergei Dimitrievich Sazonov (1860-1927) on achieving the disengagement of Romania from
Austrian influence. In the meantime, the leading figures of the Monarchy were aware that due to
the Romanians despair caused by the chauvinist Hungarian politics applied in Transylvania,
Romania could no longer remain in alliance with Austria-Hungary.

At the outbreak of World War I, the new Romanian Prime Minister, Ion C. Brtianu (1865-1927)
was able to prevent King Carol I and the conservative Germanophile politician Petre P. Carp (18371919)[20] from engaging the country in war alongside the Triple Alliance. Neither the
representatives of the Entente, nor those of the Triple Alliance succeeded in drawing Romania
onto their side from the beginning. Romanian society was split in two on one side the
Germanophiles led by Carp, who, based on the last centurys experience feared an all mighty
Russia and wanted to enter the war alongside the Triple Alliance, and on the other side, the
Entente supporters, gathered around the figure of I. C. Brtianu, who wanted to pursue the war
against Austria-Hungary for the liberation of Transylvania. One could have almost believed that
everything boiled down either to the liberation of Bessarabia (in the case of the Germanophiles), or
to the liberation of Transylvania (in the case of the Entente supporters). Both political factions
would continue to argue their cause throughout the entire war.
Prime Minister Brtianu, who was also acting as Minister of Defense, exercised great precaution in
the negotiations, as public opinion was hostile towards the Triple Alliance due to the Romanian
question in Transylvania. However, he needed a political and military deal from the Entente
Powers if Romania were to join the war on their side. On 3 August 1914, the Crown Council,
against the will of the king and the conservative political figure P. P. Carp, decided on provisional
neutrality for Romania.
In the next two years the Romanian Government prepared the economy for war. Foreign trade
developed almost entirely with the powers of the Triple Alliance, partly because of their location
and because of the closure of the Bosphorus and Dardanelle straits, through which 97 percent of
Romanian exports and 60 percent of imports passed. Besides reorganising the economy for war
(e.g. increasing the budget percentage for military spending, banning certain products and
munitions, adapting industry to war production, modernising and restructuring the war industry in
eleven public industrial facilities and fifty-nine private factories and workshops[21]), Romania
borrowed money from internal and foreign financial markets. Italian and British banks financed
Romania for the purchase of weapons, ammunition and other warfare materials.[22] The deliveries
of weapons and ammunition were made from Entente countries. Until 1915, there was a similar
situation in other states in the Triple Alliance, for example, delivery of German weapons was
exchanged for the transportation of cereal to Turkey or Bulgaria (allies of the Central Powers).[23]
Starting in 1914 the armys war plans were restructured. Until then all military plans were based on
scenarios where Russia and/or Bulgaria were the enemies. None provided for a situation in which
Romania was in conflict with Austria-Hungary or Germany. This changed in the autumn of 1914
when all war plans were redesigned with Austria-Hungary as the principal enemy. [24] At the same
time, the Romanian Government applied measures to renew and increase the number of its army
officers.
The negotiations of the Romanian Government with the Entente Powers were finalised with the

Political and Military Convention from 17 August 1916 through which the Great Powers
acknowledged Romanias right over the territories within the Austria-Hungary Empire where
Romanians were in the majority. One of the most relevant reasons for Romanias position during
the war is mentioned by Nicolae Iorga (1871-1940) in the second volume of his war chronicle, in
which he depicts the permanent danger posed by Hungary for Romania, as long as Hungary was
not reduced to its territory, in which the Hungarians lived alone or as the majority. This is the
context in which Romanias declaration of war against Austria-Hungary 27 August 1916 should be
understood. Romania joined the war in order to assert its claims over the territories in AustriaHungary and Austria where Romanians were in the majority.[25] It was the end of a national project
which successive Romanian governments had long worked for. Transylvania was, in this context,
more important than Bessarabia.

Romanias Attack on Austria-Hungary


After a cooperation treaty with the Entente was concluded the kingdom of Romania declared war
on Austro-Hungary, 27 August 1916: a few days later, military operations against Transylvania
started.[26] At that time the kingdom comprised three regions which were united partly in 1859 and
partly in 1878: the former principality of Moldavia lay east of the Eastern Carpathian Mountains,
the region of the former principality of Valachia (with the capital city Bucharest) was south of the
Southern Carpathian Mountains, and the Dobruja lay east of Valachia between the Danube and
the Black Sea coast.
The Romanian attack which could not be excluded by the Central Powers was not surprising, but
the exact point in time could not be determined until August, 1916. Romania had been an ally of
Germany and Austro-Hungary since 1883, so it declared neutrality on 3 August 1914 and news
about arrangements with the Entente spread abroad. Furthermore, it was not possible to hide
armament and mobilisation. On these grounds the governments in Vienna and Berlin had to
envisage the opening of another frontline along the Eastern and Southern Carpathian Mountains.
Since the other fronts (Russian, Balkan, Italian and French) were very high profile and took many
resources, it was not possible until summer 1916 to make provisions for sufficient military activities
within the Carpathian arc (Transylvania) in order to avoid a possible invasion by the Romanian
army. The most important measure to improve the strategic situation of the Central Powers lay in
the ambition to gain Bulgaria[27] and Turkey as allies. After long and tough negotiations these two
neighbouring countries, previously (1912/13) enemies, came under the Central Powers in autumn
1916.
On 27 August, the First Romanian Army pushed forward across the Carpathian passes towards
Southern Transylvania not only to create a bridgehead on the enemy side, but more especially to
clear the way via the Banat to Budapest (the main railway transport line was Bucharest-BraovSibiu-Arad). In this respect it was important to maintain the element of surprise, to prevent the
concentration of opposing powers and to involve the Romanian part of the domestic population as

effectively as possible for the invading Romanian troops. The Second Army turned from the east to
the Carpathian Mountains and passed mountain ranges in the southeastern areas of the country
with the objective of breaking the Austro-Hungarian and German forces and to betray those who
opposed the southern front. Due to the invasion of the Romanian Army into Transylvania
thousands of civilians fled to areas which were not threatened, or to other Crown lands of the Dual
Monarchy. The First Romanian Army reached the area of Sibiu before German and AustroHungarian formations, hastily mustered up from other fronts, stopped them. The Second
Romanian Army however could not rapidly reach deep into southeastern Transylvania because of
the difficult terrain.
The fact that the Romanian Army could be stopped within two months despite considerable
quantitative superiority was based on various circumstances: Firstly, the coordination of both army
corps posed a bigger challenge than initially supposed; secondly, the Romanian government did
not expect Berlin and Vienna to rapidly agree on common defensive measures; thirdly, the fight in
the mountains turned out to be generally more difficult and unpredictable than in in lowlands; and
lastly, Romania did not envisage a second front on the Bulgarian side of the country soon.
The military advantage on the Romanian side at the time of attack lay in the unstressed condition
of the troops, the quantity of the armaments, the unrestricted food supply from their own country,
and in the popularity within Romania of the war against Austro-Hungary. The disadvantage at the
time of attack resided in the fact that the Romanian soldiers did not have combat experience
comparable to that of the soldiers of the Central Powers and did not attract sympathy among nonRomanians within Transylvania. The anti-Romanian mood among the Magyars and Saxons
(Germans) was not only based on reservations from the past, but also on the condemnation of the
defection towards the former ally (compared with Italy as earlier treaty partner).

The Counter-Attack of the Central Powers


The aim of the counter-attack of the Central Powers consisted first in expelling the enemy from
Transylvania and next in eliminating Romania as a military factor for the rest of war and getting
hold of its resources (especially food and mineral oil) which were classified as strategic.[28] They
were seen as more important for supplying other fronts as well for German and Austro-Hungarian
civilian territories.
The Central Powers proceeded against Romania in two directions: The First Army of confederates
- a mixed union of German and Austro-Hungarian units under the command of Erich von
Falkenhayn (1861-1922) - pushed the Romanian troops in Transylvania in tough battles at the end
of October/early November, back across the southern Carpathian Mountains to Valachia and
across the eastern Carpathian Mountains to the south-western side of Moldavia. The 9th Army of
the confederates (a mixed union of German, Bulgarian and Turkish troops) under the command of
Field Marshal August von Mackensen (1849-1945) crossed from Bulgaria over the Danube at

Silistra and heckled the Romanian Army from the west and southeast. The aim of the common
operation was to confine the Romanian Army in eastern Valachia.
Admittedly, the invasion of Bucharest on 9 December 1916 did not mark the formal end of the
campaign against Romania, however, the situation was stabilised insofar as the Central Powers no
longer had to fear immediate danger from the Romanian side. The hostilities were delayed until
early 1917 in southern Moldavia and blazed again from July until August, but the situation did not
change. Russia, as an important power in the war, dropped out in March 1917 due to the
revolutionary events there.
That part of the Romanian Army which could be defeated due to the capture of Valachia and
Dobruja was disarmed and arrested. The rest fled to Moldavia, a region which remained free and
to which the Romanian court and government also fled. Reorganisation was implemented there
through French military aid a fact which outlined the growing threat for the Central Powers in
1918. When the crumbled units of the Central Powers left Romania in October, 1918, the
Romanian Army again came into play in Moldavia. Not only did it invade the formerly occupied
Valachia and Dobruja, but it pushed forward to Transylvania and, in the spring and summer of
1919, to Central Hungary in order to combat the emerged Soviet Republic of Bla Kun (18861938) there.

The Occupied Part of Romania


The part of Romania which was conquered and occupied by the Central Powers was not only
more important strategically (closeness to the Danube and to the Balkans), but it was also
economically more interesting (resources). Immediately after the invasion of Bucharest on 9
December 1916 Field Marshal von Mackensen implemented the German military administration in
Romania which was assigned to the command of the 9th Army. The military administration officially
started work at the end of December and continued until early November 1918.[29]
The military administration consisted of three occupation zones Valachia, Dobruja and
Bucharest. While the German military administration reserved the Bucharest Region solely for
itself, the other Central Powers participated in the two other occupation zones: a small part of
Walachia was under control of the Austro-Hungarian administration, whereas in Dobruja,
Bulgarians and Turks also took part in the administration.
As soon as the campaign against Romania had finished, the involved powers withdrew their troops
because they were increasingly needed on other fronts. Thus, the number of occupants decreased
gradually until 1918 when there was only a fraction of the original numbers. Those formations
which stayed in the occupied part of Romania had various tasks: To ensure the own military and
political position within the occupation area; to provide for their own troops and civilians throughout
the country; to influence the economic production within the country; to ensure the supply of the
Romanian civilian population and to export as many resources as possible; to rebuild a Romanian

state administration which should increasingly be able to assume responsibilities to relieve the
occupation regime.
The occupation regime appointed a centrally organised military administration to secure its own
military and political position and it obtained both executive and legislative responsibility. It was
situated in Bucharest and had military offices in all districts at its disposal; the latter were
operatively and administratively under the control of headquarters, and had to report news about
the situation within the country. In Valachia problems with coordination in respect of competence
arose occasionally between German and Austro-Hungarian commands. Intelligence services
played an important role in sounding out the Romanian civilian population and in reconnoitring the
situation in the free part of Romania.
Since the supply situation in countries of the Central Powers was already rather bad in 1916, the
occupation regime assumed that the supply of troops and accompanying civilians (administration,
medical services, technical advisors etc.) could be easily be achieved through the occupied part of
Romania. As there was no longer any combat in Romania and the supply situation was relatively
better than in other countries, the foreign soldiers were keen to be stationed in Romania for as
long as possible.
The major economic headquarters of the military administration periodically had to survey the
supply of goods and to arrange the required redistribution: furthermore it had to take measures to
increase economic production and ensure the politically reasonable and fair distribution of goods
among natives and countries of the occupied powers. In order to facilitate transport a network of
light railways was established to take goods to Bucharest or the Danubian ports. From there
products went across either on the main railway transport line via the Carpathian Mountains to
Austro-Hungary and Germany or upstream via the Danube. Furthermore, the professionals,
together with the economic headquarters and in cooperation with the Romanian rump government,
had the task of restructuring the finance system, which led to a number of sanctions.
Coincidentally with the occupation of Valachia the existing Romanian Government fled in 1916 to
Jassy (Moldavia); therefore initially no national authorities existed.[30] The German military
administration consequently took measures so that the state-owned administrative bodies began
to work starting in February/March 1917 and more and more responsibilities were gradually
allowed. After the conclusion of the peace treaty in Bucharest, 7 May 1918[31] (which was not
ratified by the Romanian parliament in the occupied part), the government in Bucharest was
responsible for most of the administration, even though the occupying power stayed in the country
for only a few months. The scope of this administration was kept under control of the occupation
regime.
The relationship between the occupying partners was not the best from the beginning of the
occupation, but all involved parties tried to suppress the many small conflicts in everyday life, and
avoid bringing them to Romanian societys attention. Austria-Hungary in particular, which held a

strong diplomatic as well as economic position in Bucharest before 1916, tried to reclaim an
influential role. The installation of a consular representative alongside the Austro-Hungarian
delegate at the German military administration in Romania was a success. As deputy of the
imperial-royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs he had far more influence than officially admitted.[32]
Right from the beginning there was a big contrast between the theory and reality of occupation.
Initially the Germans were held in high esteem which decreased however more and more with their
harsh attitudes (scattered executions in 1918). In contrast the "little brother" Austria-Hungary
appeared as the enemy in the country with whom it seemed to be easier to get along. At first
Romanian politicians in the occupied part of Romania were forced to act carefully to ensure their
influence on the circumstances. Gradually two sides emerged: those who were willing to arrange
themselves with the Central Powers after the war and those unwilling to do so. Only in rare cases
did the Romanian population openly resist; usually passive resistance was sufficient to signal their
disagreement with the occupation regime. There were no major problems with Romanian
prisoners of war until the end of 1917, but more and more people fled, trying to reach the
unoccupied part, where the Romanian army consolidated. Discipline among the occupation troops
decreased noticeably in 1918 because the unauthorised removal from the troops increased and
goods found their way to private use.

The Unoccupied Part of Romania


The (smaller) part of Romania that was not occupied by the Central Powers included the territory
of the former principality of Moldavia west of the river Prut. This area belonged to the countrys
historical core and was surrounded by regions where, in spite of different proportions, a
predominantly Romanian population lived. The surrounding regions were on the one hand the
occupied part of Romania (Valachia, Dobruja), and on the other hand provinces which were parts
of either Austro-Hungary (Transylvania, Bukovina, Banat) or Russia (Bessarabia).
The relationship between the free and occupied parts of Romania was special, because Moldavia
was an integral component of the Romanian national state until the occupation and because
unrestricted contact with the occupied part was not possible since the German military
administration tried to block the relationships between the two parts of the country as far as
possible. Freedom to travel was severely limited, and there was also no official economic
substitute. A fortiori contacts to the underground played a role. Thus, intelligence services were
highly active on both sides.
There was also no official contact between foreign countries and the Romanian population during
war because these countries were either situated on enemy ground or in the case of Bessarabia
the czarist authority had no interest in an intensification of relationships in spite of the
cooperation between Russia and Romania within the Entente. Notably, Russia had annexed the
eastern part of Moldavia (Bessarabia) in 1812 and had made it a Russian province. This problem
changed after the central order collapsed and Russia began the February Revolution. In

Bessarabia an initiative was established, ongoing in March 1918, which aimed to create a small
independent state from the land between Prut and Dniester in spite of the fact the majority of the
population was Romanian. The attacks by the Red Army in the first months of 1918 were aimed at
an integration of Bessarabia into the new Soviet Russia: they forced political powers within
Bessarabia to request help from the Romanian army in neighbouring free Romania; and help was
granted. The consequence of this military intervention was the reincorporation of Bessarabia into
Romania in April 1918.[33] This success raised the prestige of the exiled Romanian Government.
Similar opportunities for union between Bukovina, Banat, Transylvania, and Romania did not
present themselves until November/December 1918, when the Habsburg Empire decayed and the
National Councils which emerged in the regions brought about consolidation with the kingdom.
The relationship of occupied Romania with the allies of the Entente was ambivalent. Cooperation
with France across the Macedonian Front flourished: but a French military mission under the
command of General Henri Berthelot (1861-1931)[34] (which contributed essentially to the
consolidation of the Romanian army on Moldavian ground in 1917/18), and the presence of the
Russian troops until spring 1917, stressed the relationship not only to the Romanian army, but also
to the Moldavian population.
The relationship of occupied Romania with the Central Powers was naturally tense. The Central
Powers tried to appoint a government capable of acting in the occupied part of Romania and to
negotiate a ceasefire and peace treaty with them, but the Romanian parliament and royal court
fled to Jassy and tried to prevent such a compromise in order to keep influence in further
developments. Due to German and Austro-Hungarian pressure and after months of negotiations,
the Treaty of Buftea, near Bucharest was signed on 5 March 1918, and on 7 May the Treaty of
Bucharest was concluded; in this process the Romanian forces in exile did not play a major
role.[35] Although the Central Powers threatened to lead the fight against the rest of Romania if the
Treaty of Bucharest was not ratified in the occupied part of Romania, this did not happen until the
end of war. Thus, King Ferdinand and the government in exile gained increasing influence on the
countrys future without further combat.

Romania at the End of the War (1918-1920)

After the summer of 1917 when, with the help of the French military mission the reorganised
Romanian army managed to stop the German offensive (Mrti, Mreti),[36] and after the
Russian troops abandoned the front because of the revolution on their home soil, the Romanian
political figures knew that Romania could no longer sustain the war effort by itself. Although the
Crown Council on 2 December 1917 had decided to continue with the resistance, in opposition to
what the Powers of the Entente believed and contrary to internal resistance, Prime Minister Ion I.
C. Brtianu chose to sign the armistice with the Central Powers in Focani[37] (7 December 1917,
just two days after Russia and the Powers of the Triple Alliance had begun the peace negotiations
in Brest-Litovsk). This was an infringement of the 17 August 1916 agreement signed with the
Entente Allies.[38] After Russia signed the peace treaty at Brest-Litovsk on 3 March 1918, the king
appointed the conservative and Germanophile politician Alexandru Marghiloman (1854-1925) as
prime minister in Iai, hoping that he would be able to negotiate more efficiently with Germany and
Austria-Hungary. The ensuing peace treaty was signed in Bucharest with the countries of the
Triple Alliance. The provisions were disastrous for Romania the country had no other option but
to concede the Carpathian passes (a strip of two to ten kilometers with 23,000 inhabitants), and
the entire economy became subordinated to the German-Austrian one, while Dobruja was
occupied by Bulgaria. In exchange, Romania was able to keep Bessarabia, which had been
annexed in April of the same year. King Ferdinand did not sign the Bucharest Peace Treaty.
The decision to sign the peace with the Triple Alliance countries spared the Romanian army, which
had been left without Russian support and numerically and technically inferior to the military power
of Germany and Austria-Hungary. It also gave way to an event on 10 November 1918, a day
before the armistice from Compigne (11 November 1918) was signed, in which Romania declared
war on the Triple Alliance and as a result was able to be on the same side as the victorious
Powers at the end of the war. This fact also gave Romania later the possibility of acting in favour
of the Entente and contributing to the safeguarding of Europe against the Bolshevik advancement
on the continent (1919).
Throughout 1918 Romania was able to annex the provinces promised in the 1916 agreement:
Bessarabia (April 1918), Bukovina (November 1918), Banat, Criana, Maramure and
Transylvania (December 1918). The Romanians represented the majority of the population in
these territories, with the exception of Bukovina where they were only slightly outnumbered by the
Ukrainians, who settled there in large numbers during the previous 150 years. The unification with
Romania, decided by means of national assemblies, congresses or parliamentary decrees, was
preceded in all three cases by Romanian troops entering Transylvania, Bukovina and Bessarabia.
These were meant to secure order in the face of Ukrainian or Hungarian anarchic attempts and
marked these provinces as belonging to the Romanian Kingdom. Only in the case of Banat, which
was claimed by Hungary, Serbia and Romania alike, did the Romanian troops enter as late as the
summer of 1919, after the Serbian troops left the territory they had occupied since the autumn of
1918.

Once the unification was completed de facto, it needed to be recognised at international level.
Through the agreement of August 1916 Romania was promised all the territory of Banat, parts of
Bukovina, and Transylvania. The participation in the war, the great material losses and human
sacrifice, and the will of the native Romanian population backed the historical and legal arguments
that Romania brought forward during the Paris Peace Conference. The German Saxons from
Transylvania and Banat were also favouring the unification with Romania the former were quick
to state this in January 1919, whereas, in the case of the Swabians of Banat, it took until the
summer of 1919 to decide. Romanias status at the Peace Conference in Paris was of a country
with limited interests.[39] The Romanian Delegation was initially represented by Prime Minister
Ionel I. C. Brtianu and, after his resignation, by Alexandru Vaida-Voevod - top-ranking politician of
Romanians from Transylvania and confidant of Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria-Este (18631914).
The Peace Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, 10 December 1919, signed by Vaida-Voevod brought
the international recognition of Bukovina as part of Romania. The Allies and Hungary signed the
peace treaty in Trianon on 4 June 1920. For the Romanian side, the agreement was signed by Ion
Cantacuzino (1863-1934) and Nicolae Titulescu (1882-1941).[40] Transylvania, Banat, the Partium
and Maramure, a total of 102,200 square km and a population of 5,257,476 inhabitants (of these
1,704,851 being Hungarian and 559,824 Germans) became constitutionally integrated into the
Romanian state.
For Romania, this was the climax of its entire history, while for Hungary it was a tragedy which
would be repeatedly reflected in the historiography of both countries throughout the 20th and 21st
centuries and would lead to numerous tensions between then. In reality, things were far more
nuanced. While there were also voices among the Romanians of Transylvania imagining their
future in a federal Austrian Monarchy, Hungarian representatives had to admit that their own
national assertion would prompt the nationalism of the peoples they had occupied and that the
politics of the Hungarian regimes after 1867 would eventually push minorities away from Hungary.
The Transylvanian Saxons relied upon the promises made by Romanians in Alba Iulia (equality,
right to education, administration, and justice in their own language, right to political
representation) and decided quickly on 8 January 1919 in Media to join Romania.[41] The Banat
Swabians, who had previously been subjected to the intensive Magyarisation process, struggled
more and, after taking various possibilities into consideration (for example, remaining at Hungarys
side or becoming a separate Republic of Banat), finally decided to join Romania in August 1919.
The resolution was sent to the representatives of the Great Powers and to the newly created
governing council of Transylvania, in charge of coordinating Transylvanian governmental affairs
until 4 April 1920. For Hungarians it was difficult to accept and adapt to the status of an ethnic
minority group. They had to accept the change in roles in light of the demographical figures of
Transylvania that were not in their favour, and comply with them, albeit reluctantly.[42]
While the treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, 10 December 1919, recognised Bukovina as part of

Romania, Trianon had to recognise the unification of Transylvania, Criana and Maramure, and
two thirds of Banat (the other third shared between the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes
and Hungary) with Romania. The Peace Treaty of Svres signed with Bulgaria recognised in 1913
the annexation of the regions south of Dobrudja to Romania. On 28 October 1920, the
representatives of France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, and Romania signed the treaty recognising
the annexation of Bessarabia to Romania. Japan, however, because of consequent pressure from
Russia did not ratify the treaty.[43]
Before World War I, the kingdom of Romania extended to 138,000 square kilometers. After the
annexation of all these provinces, Romanias land area more than doubled, to 295,049 square
kilometers. Much the same happened with its population. In 1915, 7.5 million people lived in the
entire kingdom, whereas in 1919 there were 15.5 million. By 1930, this figure increased to over 18
million making Romania the eighth largest country in Europe. Nevertheless, the national structure
of the population changed substantially. The old Romania (the Old Kingdom) had a broadly unitary,
ethnically homogeneous structure. In the new situation, a relatively large number of minorities
ended up living in Greater Romania, representing approximately 30 percent of the total population.
Minorities were dominant in certain regional or local areas. Ten percent were Hungarians, 4.4
percent Germans (Transylvanian Saxons, Banat Swabians, Satu-Mare Swabians, Bukovina
Germans, Bessarabia Germans, Germans from Dobrudja, those from Bucharest, and from the
industrial areas around Ploieti) and 3.2 percent Jews. The rest of the 30 percent comprised
Roma, Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Russians, Slovaks, Turks, Tatars, Gagaus, Greeks, Albanians and
Armenians.[44]
Romania faced the great challenge of making the country viable by means of solid economic and
cultural development, adapting the administration, and eliminating regional particularities. They
also needed to synchronise the economic and social differences among the provinces, and
especially to abolish great social injustices through the integration of different population groups.
These were not necessarily only the national minorities, but also Romanians of the old and new
provinces who had been familiar with different political, social and cultural systems they did not
necessarily want to abandon.
P. P. Carps vision would prove true the great Eastern neighbour, Russia, would remain the main
opponent of a modern and independent Romania that was in the process of developing according
to Western models. Despite its participation in the war, numerous sacrifices and the post-war
economic and demographic consolidation situation, Romania stood alone against Hungarian
revisionism but also, as already stated, against a Russia (later the Soviet Union) that has never
been ready to accept the unification of Bessarabia with Romania.

Conclusion

The main cause of Romanias entry into war was because they sought a realignment of boundaries
of the national state, since Austria-Hungary had captured provinces that included Romanian
populations. In the final analysis this plan worked out, though not in the way the Romanian
Government planned. In contrast, the Treaty of Bucharest provided for slight concessions of
territory along the Transylvanian border to Romanias cost. In addition, the association of the
kingdom with Austro-Hungary existed as a project for the future. The disintegration of the Russian
Empire, which was not one of Romanias war aims, preceded Bessarabias affiliation to Romania.
The Romanian national state more than doubled in size, largely due to gains of territory with
Romanian majority populations in 1918/20 (Banat, Transylvania, Bukovina, Bessarabia). This
growth however also meant that about a third of the population who lived in Romania were not
Romanians. The consequent problems of the minorities did not help the kingdoms external or
internal stability. Additionally, the young Soviet Union did not want to accept the loss of Bessarabia
and therefore implemented an Autonomous Socialist Moldavian Soviet Republic along the Dniestr
as early as 1922. The associated Bessarabian question strained the Soviet-Romanian relationship
in the interwar period and led to the annexation of the country between 1940 and 1944.
The positive outcome of war for Romania served as a foundation in the aftermath when the
literature memoirs and historiography stressed Romanias victorious military role. Hence, the
narrative to Romanias involvement in World War I is subject to pro-national aims: it does not yet
benefit from widespread critical and value-neutral appraisal.

Rudolf Grf, Universitatea Babes-Bolyai Cluj Napoca, Romania


Harald Heppner, Universitt Graz

Section Editor: Richard Hall

Notes
1. Pop, Ioan-Aurel / Bolovan, Ioan (eds.): Istoria Romniei [History of Romania], Cluj-Napoca
2004, pp. 496534.
2. Ungureanu, Mihai-Rzvan: Die Modernisierung der rumnischen Gesellschaft, in: Kahl,
Thede / Metzteltin Michael / Ungureanu, Mihai-Rzvan (Hg.): Rumnien, Vienna 2006, pp.
265.
3. Boicu, Leonid / Cristian, Vasile / Platon, Gheorghe: Romnia n relaiile internaionale
16991939 [Romania in the International Relations], Iai 1980, p. 301.
4. Volkmer, Gerald: Auenpolitische Orientierungsmuster Rumniens im europischen
Kontext 18661918, in: Binder-Iijima, Edda / Lwe, Heinz-Dietrich / Volkmer, Gerald: Die
Hohenzollern in Rumnien 18661947. Eine monarchische Herrschaftsordnung im
europischen Kontext, Vienna 2010, p. 31.

5. Pop / Bolovan: Istoria Romniei, p. 516.


6. Bolovan, Ioan: Habitat i evoluie demografic [Habitat and Demographic Debelopment],
in: Pop, Ioan-Aurel / Ngler, Thomas / Magyari, Andrs (Hg.): Istoria Transilvaniei [History of
Transylvania], vol. III (de la 1711 pn la 1918), Cluj-Napoca 2008, pp. 494501.
7. Ibid.
8. Kpeczi, Bla (Hg.): Kurze Geschichte Siebenbrgens, Budapest 1990, pp. 556560.
9. Bernath, Mathias: Habsburg und die Anfnge der rumnischen Nationsbildung, Leiden
1972.
10. Kpeczi, Kurze Geschichte Siebenbrgens 1990, p. 541.
11. Kpeczi, Kurze Geschichte Siebenbrgens 1990, p. 545.
12. Ibid.
13. Wandruszka, Adam / Urbanitsch, Peter: Die Habsburgermonarchie 18481918, Band III:
Die Vlker des Reiches, 2. Teilband, Vienna 2003, pp. 1282-1283.
14. Bocan, Nicolae / Crja, Ion: Die Rumnische Unierte Kirche am Ersten Vatikanischen
Konzil, Frankfurt am Main 2013.
15. Maior, Liviu: Dualismul austro-ungar [The Austro-Hungarian Dualism], in Pop / Ngler /
Magyari: Istoria Transilvaniei, p. 431.
16. Bernath, Habsburg und die Anfnge 1972.
17. Popovici, Aurel: Die Vereinigten Staaten von Gross-sterreich. Politische Studien zur
Lsung der nationalen Fragen und staatsrechtlichen Krisen in sterreich-Ungarn mit einer
Karte des fderativen Gross-sterreich, s.l., Leipzig 1906.
18. Volkmer, Auenpolitische Orientierungsmuster Rumniens, in: Binder-Iijima/Lwe/Volkmer,
Die Hohenzollern in Rumnien 2010, p. 36.
19. Volkmer, Auenpolitische Orientierungsmuster Rumniens, in: Binder-Iijima/Lwe/Volkmer,
Die Hohenzollern in Rumnien 2010, pp. 36-37.
20. Boia, Lucian: Germanofilii Elita intelectuala romneasc n anii Primului Rzboi Mondial
[Germanophiles. The Romanian intellectual elite in the time of World War I], Bucharest 2009.
21. Romnia n anii Primului Rzboi Mondial [Romania in the time of World War I], Bucharest
1987, p. 119. The work is strongly influenced by the communist interpretation pattern, but
can be used successfully due to the abundance of information.
22. Ibid., p. 113.
23. Ibid, p. 121.
24. Boia, Germanofilii [Germanophiles] 2009, p. 36.
25. Iorga, Nicolae: Rzboiul nostru n note zilnice 19161918 [Our War in every day notes],
volume II, Craiova s.a., p. 7 (...the Hungarians are for us I say it without hatred as we are
speaking of fatal things a permanent and unchanging opponent, as long as it is not
territorially reduced to a land where they can live by themselves or as a majority).

26. Detailed in: sterreich-Ungarns letzter Krieg Bd. V, Vienna 1934, pp. 223-358.
27. Markov, Georgi: Goljamata vojna i blgarskata straa medu Sredna Evropa i Orienta
19161919 g. [The Great War and the Bulgarian guard between Central Europe and the
Orient], Sofija 2006.
28. Ibid., pp. 449-628.
29. Scheer, Tamara: Zwischen Front und Heimat. sterreich-Ungarns Militrverwaltungen im
Ersten Weltkrieg, Frankfurt et al. 2009, passim; Mayerhofer, Lisa: Zwischen Freund und
Feind Deutsche Besatzung in Rumnien 19161918, Munich 2010.
30. Procopiu, Grigore: Parlamentul in pribegie 1916-1918 [The Escaped Parliament], Bucureti
1992.
31. Bornemann, Elke: Der Friede von Bukarest 1918, Frankfurt 1978.
32. Heppner, Harald: Im Schatten des groen Bruders. sterreich-Ungarn als
Besatzungsmacht in Rumnien 19161918, in: sterreichische Militrische Zeitung 45
(2007), pp. 317-322.
33. See the contemporaneous description as a reprint: Ghibu, Oniifor: De la Basarabia
ruseasc la Basarabia romneasc [From Russian Bessarabia to Romanian Bessarabia],
Bucharest 1997.
34. Berthelot et la Roumanie. Album, Bucarest 1997.
35. Pal, Vincze / Seewann, Gerhard (Hg.): Gustav Gratz, Augenzeuge dreier Epochen. Die
Memoiren des ungarischen Auenministers 18751945, Munich 2009, pp. 164221.
36. Rommel, Erwin: Infanterie greift an. Erlebnis und Erfahrung, Potsdam 1941, p. 176.
37. Pop / Bolovan, Istoria Romniei, p. 525.
38. Boia: Germanofilii [Germanophiles] 2009, p. 48.
39. Pop/Bolovan: Istoria Romniei [History of Romania], Cluj-Napoca 2004, p. 533; Istoria
Romnilor, VII/2, p. 528; Kpeczi, Kurze Geschichte Siebenbrgens 1990, pp. 656657.
40. Pop / Bolovan: Istoria Romniei [History of Romania] 2004, p. 533; Istoria Romnilor, VII/,
pp. 526-528; Kpeczi, Kurze Geschichte Siebenbrgens 1990, pp. 656658.
41. Wildmann, Georg: Donauschwbische Geschichte, Munich 2010, p. 240.
42. Scharr, Kurt / Grf, Rudolf: Rumnien. Geschichte und Geographie, Vienna et al. 2008, p.
4956.
43. Pop / Bolovan: Istoria Romniei [History of Romania] 2004, p. 534.
44. Data from the 1930 Romanian census.
Selected Bibliography
Dinu, Rudolf / Bulei, Ion: La Romania nella grande guerra: documenti militari e diplomatici
italiani, 1914-1918, Bucharest 2006: Editura Militar.

Otu, Petre: Marealul Alexandru Averescu: militarul, omul politic, legenda (Marshal
Alexandru Averescu. Soldier, Political leader, Legend), Bucharest 2005: Editura Militar.
Pop, Ioan Aurel / Bolovan, Ioan / Andea, Susana: Istoria Romaniei: compendiu (History of
Romania), Cluj-Napoca 2004: Institutul Culturala Romn.
Leu, Valeriu / Bocan, Nicolae / Bedecean, Mihaela et al. (eds.): Marele Rzboi n memoria
bnean (1914-1919) (The Great War in Banatian memory), Cluj-Napoca 2012.
Astorri, Antonella / Salvadori, Patrizia: Istoria ilustrat a primului razboi mondial (an illustrated
history of World War I), Bucharest 1999: Enciclopedia RAO.
Stevenson, David: Der Erste Weltkrieg: 1914-1918, Mannheim 2010: Bibliographisches Institut.
Hpken, Wolfgang: Rumnien, in: Hirschfeld, Gerhard / Krumeich, Gerd / Renz, Irina (eds.):
Enzyklopdie Erster Weltkrieg, Paderborn 2009: Schningh.
Barta, Gbor / Kpeczi, Bla: Kurze Geschichte Siebenbrgens, Budapest 1990: Akad. K..
Ivnescu, Dumitru / Ivnescu, Sorin D.: La Roumanie et la grande guerre, Iai 2005: Editura
Junimea.
Heppner, Harald: Im Schatten des 'groen Bruders. sterreich-Ungarn als Besatzungsmacht
in Rumnien 19161918, in: sterreichische Militrische Zeitung/45 , 2007, pp. 317-322.
Procopiu, Grigore: Parlamentul in pribegie: 1916-1918 (The Escaped Parliament 1916-1918),
Bucharest 1992: Ed. Univ..
Boia, Lucian: Germanofilii: elita intelectual romneasca n anii primului rzboi mondial
(Germanophiles. The Romanian Intellectual Elite in time of World War I), Bucharest 2010:
Humanitas.
Scharr, Kurt / Grf, Rudolf: Rumnien: Geschichte und Geographie, Vienna 2008: Bhlau.
Popa, Vasile, Muzeul Militar Naional 'Regele Ferdinand I.', (ed.): Misiunea generalului Coand la
Stavka, 1916-1917 (The mission of general Coand in the War Head Quarter, 19161917),
Bucharest 2010: Editura Militar.
Rauchensteiner, Manfried: Der Tod des Doppeladlers: sterreich-Ungarn und der Erste
Weltkrieg, Graz 1993: Styria Verlag.
Binder-Iijima, Edda / Lwe, Heinz-Dietrich / Volkmer, Gerhard (eds.): Die Hohenzollern in
Rumnien 1866 - 1947. Eine monarchische Herrschaftsordnung im europischen Kontext,
Vienna et al. 2010: Bhlau.
Keegan, John: Der Erste Weltkrieg: eine europische Tragdie, Reinbek 2000: Kindler.
Rdulescu-Zoner, erban / Marinescu, Beatrice: Bucuretii n anii primului rzboi mondial:
1914-1918 (Bucharest in the years of World War I: 1914-1918), Bucharest 1993: Editura
Albatros.
Blondel, Yvonne: Jurnal de rzboi, 1916-1917: frontul de sud al Romniei (War Journal 19161917. The Southern front of Romania), Bucharest 2005: Institutul cultural romn.
Hamlin, David: The fruits of occupation: food and Germany's occupation of Romania in the
First World War, in: First World War Studies 4/1, 2013, pp. 81-95.
Milea, Vasile / Atanasiu, Victor: Romnia n anii primului rzboi mondial: caracterul drept,
eliberator al participrii Romniei la rzboi, Bucharest 1987: Editura militar.
Zapolovs'kij, Volodimir: Bukovina v ostannj vjn Avstro-Ugorini, 1914-1918 (The Bucovina
during Austria-Hungarys War 19141918), Chernivtsi 2003: Zolot litavri.
Mayerhofer, Lisa: Zwischen Freund und Feind - Deutsche Besatzung in Rumnien 1916-1918,
Munich 2010: Meidenbauer.

Citation
Heppner, Harald,Grf, Rudolf: Romania, in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the
First World War, ed. by Ute Daniel, Peter Gatrell, Oliver Janz, Heather Jones, Jennifer Keene, Alan
Kramer, and Bill Nasson, issued by Freie Universitt Berlin, Berlin 2014-10-08. DOI:
10.15463/ie1418.10375 Last modified: 2014-10-05.
License
2014 This text is licensed under: CC by-NC-ND 3.0 Germany - Attribution, Non-commercial, No
Derivative Works.

You might also like